Amber Necklaces for Babies: Dangerous and Useless

The origins of this trend are uncertain, but as early as 2012, English-language internet forums already featured people asking whether amber necklaces really helped ease babies’ discomfort during teething, when their first baby teeth begin to emerge. In 2014, Glamour magazine, published by Grupo Globo, made headlines reporting that Gisele Bündchen’s baby was wearing one of these necklaces—supposedly meant to “reduce the discomfort of teething.”

Today, a Google search in Portuguese brings up more than 600,000 results, including countless ads offering the product online for around R$110. Spoiler alert: these necklaces are not only useless but dangerous. Buying them won’t calm your baby—it will only burn a hole in your wallet.

And the media hasn’t exactly helped clear things up. In September of this year, Pais e Filhos magazine published a feature on the supposed (imaginary) benefits and the very real risks of amber necklaces, promoted as natural painkillers and anti-inflammatories for teething. Back in April, another parenting magazine, Crescer, had also covered the topic. In both reports, the space given to parents’ testimonials stands out—what science calls anecdotal evidence, which proves nothing. We don’t know if there are dissatisfied parents, how many, or whether they outnumber those who claim success.

Even when parents are convinced their baby got better after wearing the necklace—calmer, less irritable, fewer allergies—that “certainty” falls apart once we account for a number of confounding factors.

Correlation is not causation. The rooster crows every day before sunrise. That’s a correlation. To say the sun rises because the rooster crows would be absurd. The same goes for amber necklaces. The baby wears the necklace and then calms down. That’s a correlation. To claim the necklace caused the calm is just as absurd.

Regression to the mean. Many ailments and discomforts come and go on their own. Colic, for instance, is common in babies, and it subsides naturally. If a baby calms down half an hour after the necklace is put on, credit often goes to the necklace, when it might just as well be time, cuddling, or coincidence.

Natural progression. Many conditions resolve on their own with time. Teething certainly falls into this category. Not all babies feel pain when teeth come in, and symptoms like fever or diarrhea have never been scientifically linked to the process.

To truly test whether a treatment works, we need randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. There isn’t a single such study on amber necklaces—not even preclinical research in animals testing their supposed mechanism of action. Mechanism of Action? What Mechanism?

As if anecdotal evidence weren’t weak enough, the mechanisms of action suggested by manufacturers range from the absurd to the ridiculous—except for one single claim that might sound vaguely scientific, which we’ll examine here. A brief list includes:

Natural sedative

Natural painkiller and antiseptic

Natural anti-inflammatory

Activates the chakras, specifically the solar plexus

“Ionization” that protects the human body against magnetic fields

Amber releases succinic acid into the baby’s skin, producing a painkilling effect

Claims that amber must be beneficial “because it’s natural” are baseless. Just because a substance is produced in nature does not make it automatically good. Some of the most harmful poisons we know—like nicotine—are entirely “natural.”

The mention of “ionization” may refer to amber’s traditional use in generating static electricity: rub a piece of amber on wool and you can make arm hairs stand up or bend a thin stream of water from a faucet. Fun party tricks, yes—but with no connection whatsoever to teething pain.

“Chakras,” meanwhile, belong to a religious belief system. Invoking them is no different from suggesting a saint’s medal.

That leaves only one mechanism with even a shred of plausibility: the supposed release of succinic acid into the baby’s skin. But to go from “plausible” to “effective,” several questions need answers:

Does amber actually contain succinic acid?

Is the acid released upon contact with the skin?

Does the acid have painkilling properties?

Even if so, can it penetrate the skin?

And if it does, would the tiny amount released be enough to have any effect?

It should come as no surprise that the answer to every question above—except the first—is no. That first “yes” is hardly surprising either, since pseudosciences typically rely on scientific-sounding jargon (like the technical name of a molecule) to confuse consumers.

To be clear: there is no evidence that succinic acid is released from amber or absorbed by the skin. No evidence it has analgesic properties. And in fact, the U.S. FDA classifies it as a skin irritant. When it breaks down, it can release acetic acid (vinegar) and formic acid (the main component of ant venom)—compounds no parent would want anywhere near a baby’s skin. Irresponsibility

Despite how easy it is to debunk these claims, the media often dances around instead of stating clearly: the product does not work. This cautious language only fuels a market that preys on parents during one of the most challenging, uncertain stages of life—early childhood.

Yes, magazines do warn about the dangers: necklaces can strangle or choke babies, and the beads can be swallowed. But why deliberately avoid saying the obvious—that the product is useless?

Worse, both magazines suggest “alternatives” such as using amber as a bracelet or anklet. In other words: buy the necklace, even though science says it doesn’t work—just don’t put it around the baby’s neck.

Even medical associations cited in these reports aren’t much better. They highlight the choking hazard but fail to state the truth: amber necklaces are ineffective.

Wouldn’t it be simpler—and more honest—to just tell parents not to buy them, and to invite a pediatric dentist to explain what really happens during teething?

✍️ Natalia Pasternak is a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Sciences at the University of São Paulo (USP), national coordinator of Pint of Science Brazil, and president of the Instituto Questão de Ciência.